Skip to comments.Cruz: Middle East was more secure with Hussein, Gadhafi
Posted on 12/10/2015 2:29:07 PM PST by Isara
GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz said Thursday that the Middle East was more secure when key dictators were still in power, and said too many Democrats and Republicans have supported toppling Middle Eastern governments to the benefit of the United States' enemies.
"Was the world, in fact, in the Middle East, a more secure place when Saddam Hussein was in power, when Moammar Gadhafi was in power, and when [Bashar] Assad wasn't fighting for his life in Syria?" asked MSNBC's Joe Scarborough.
"Of course it was," Cruz answered. "That's not even a close call."
Cruz said Gadhafi did bad things but had worked with the United States and "was actively cooperating in hunting down and stopping radical Islamic terrorists." The Texas senator said Gadhafi's ouster has turned Libya into a "chaotic warzone ruled by radical Islamic terrorists."
"We need to focus on killing bad guys," Cruz said. "What has been a mistake, and we've seen a consistent mistake in foreign policy is far too often, we've seen Democrats and a lot of establishment Republicans in Washington get involved in toppling Middle Eastern governments. And it ends up benefiting the bad guys. It ends up handing them over to radical Islamic terrorists."
Cruz ranks first in the Washington Examiner's newest GOP presidential power rankings.
Exactly. Strong leaders are sometimes needed to do the killing that “good” people won’t do. The islamo followers need to be contained.
And let us not forget the Shah of Iran. Iran was not an Islam Lunatic religious nut country while the Shah ruled it, but thanks to Jimmy Carter, the entire Middle east has been destabilized.
Jimmy Carter set the stage for Nuclear Armageddon, and Idiot Baby Obama insured that the Religious Kooks would be able to kill millions.
Sometimes your only viable choices are “very bad” vs “much worse”.
In this case, “brutal dictator” vs “genocidal theocracy”.
with regard to Iraq, there was a war begun in 1990 still in process in 2003.
Iraq was neither secure nor stable
Libya under the influence of the son was becoming both more stable and secure
I dunno about that. Saddam ran a couple of armored divisions into Kuwait with no warning. That may be a lot of things, but “secure” it is not.
And he’s right. Invading Iraq without a clear definition of victory or even mission completion was a monumental mistake, as was overthrowing Ghadaffi “just because.”
We should have rolled up al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan FIRST.
GW defeated Hussein and tamed his country. Ghaddaffy cried for help from his Arab buddies (but submitted to GW.) Obama came in, surrendered in Iraq, executed Quaudaafy and started Holy Hell there. TRIED the same thing in Egypt, but Egyptian patriots said “No you DON’T.”
the war in Iraq had been in process for 12 years in 2003
Cruz said Gadhafi did bad things but had worked with the United States and "was actively cooperating in hunting down and stopping radical Islamic terrorists." The Texas senator said Gadhafi's ouster has turned Libya into a "chaotic warzone ruled by radical Islamic terrorists."Cruz is correct about Libya, and now comes more bad news that Libya is a safe haven for top ISIS leaders.
We can count Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Marco Rubio among the wrong-headed creators of the foreign policy that advocated regime change in Libya and the removal of Muammar Qaddafi.
Nation building doesn’t work, whether it’s call Arab Spring or anything else. Years ago, I took a university class from Dr. Russell Kirk. He was fond of quoting a friend of his as saying, “The United States Constitution is not for export.”
Saddam ran a couple of armored divisions into Kuwait with no warning....What? GHWB’s Sec. Of State gave Hussein the Go Ahead if I remember. That’s why he called GWHB the”snake” and GWB the Son of the Snake.
Trump made that point a long time ago.
Wait a minute!! Cruz said that Trump does not have the judgment to be President.
You cannot tame the Arab. Either he will be held in check with a strong hand, or he will go dangerously crazy all over the place.
Our progressive pols have chosen the latter.
In this case, âbrutal dictatorâ vs âgenocidal theocracyâ.
Yep, and in the case of muslims, a brutal dictator — especially a secular one — is far better for everyone. Muslims have proven they can’t be trusted to choose their leaders. They function best under the firm jackboot of an iron-fisted dictator.
Ted you an add Syria, too
On a very low-intensity level, yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.